Little time was spared in the war of words - and threats even - with regards to replacing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Before I get there, let me just say that before she became a Justice she was a fierce advocate for equality of the sexes. She was so motivated that she took on cases representing men as well as women when she saw any unfair discrimination within the law. Needless to say, I did not agree with her often on her Supreme Court decisions. But as I have said previously in the blog, it is important to give credit where credit is due.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised a floor vote on any nominee put forth by President Trump. He was immediately attacked as being a hypocrite, after not allowing a floor vote on Obama's pick of Merrick Garland in an election year. So, as I like to do, let's dispense with the nonsense early on. Yes, a good argument can be made that McConnell is being a hypocrite. But I've said it before, when a party is in power they say one thing, and when out of power they say another thing. In 1992, then Senator Biden said there would be no hearings on any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court in an election year. Fast forward to 2016 when he was Vice President and Obama nominated Garland in an election year: "I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires." So, Biden is a hypocrite too. Although, I do not think calling either McConnell or Biden a "hypocrite" gives us any great understanding of the system. It is power politics, pure and simple.
Think Democrats don't play the game? Just look at the picks of the last 4 presidents. Bill Clinton got Ginsburg approved with a vote of 96-3, and Stephen Breyer with a vote of 87-9. Overwhelming support by both parties. Even when times were more heated, Obama got Sonia Sotomayor approved by a 68-31 vote - over 2/3 of the Senators voted for her. And Elena Kagan got nearly 2/3 with a vote of 63-37. How did the two most recent Republican Presidents fare with their nominees? Bush nominee John Roberts won a large percentage of votes, 78-22. It was a closer vote for Samuel Alito, 58-42. And Trump's picks? Neil Gorsuch was confirmed with a tight 54-45 vote, and Brett Kavanaugh squeaked in with the barest of margins by 50-48. A quick glance reveals that Republicans are far more likely to vote based on the previously accepted perspective - as long as the nominee is well qualified, the sitting president gets to have his nominee approved. However, as the Democrats have increasingly looked to the Courts for results they could not get through legislation or votes, the confirmation process turned into a political battleground. Besides, the Democrats controlled the Courts for decades, and were unwillingly to cede what they saw as their right to Republicans.
Here is Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, who also recently ran for president, in 2016 regarding the Garland nomination: "The Constitution is clear. The Senate must consider the president's nominee and then choose to vote yes or no. We must do our job, hold hearings and vote." The Senate must. Unless, the Republican Trump is president, then "They (the Republicans) set this precedent, and they can't mess around and use raw political power right in the middle of an election." Oh no? There is no such limitation in the Constitution. The president nominates, and the Senate votes. That's it. Everything else is, in fact, politics. "Raw political power?" Would that be when Obama and Pelosi and Reid pushed through the ACA (Obamacare) on a straight party line vote, with no interest in Republican input.
Here's Democratic Senator Ed Markey: "McConnell set the precedent (referring to Garland not getting a floor vote). No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress (they assume they will take back the Senate in November), we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court." Again, let's dispense with the nonsense. Even before Ginsburg died, the Democrats were talking about abolishing the filibuster, packing the Court (increasing the size of the Court from 9 Justices to 11 or 13) and adding Washington, D.C. as a state, in order to gain 2 more Democratic seats in the Senate. To borrow an old cliche, the Democrats are intent on gaining power by hook or by crook. If they don't win under the current system, that means the system is bad/corrupt and must be changed.
Here is commentator and author Reza Aslan: "If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down." And: "Over our dead bodies, literally." Here is writer Laura Bassett: "If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots." No surprise. The Democrats are incensed that Trump gets 3 SCOTUS nominees in a single term. Like children who throw temper tantrums, their tantrums are riots. Here is a political science professor in Canada: "Burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS." It does not matter that the Constitution gives Trump the absolute right to name a nominee. If they don't get what they want - change the rules, riot and burn it down. As Republicans do not talk like this, tell me again who the fascists are. For some time now the Democrats have believed that governing is their right; and we saw that in the way they never accepted the results of the 2016 election, and spent 3 years trying to remove Trump through impeachment.
Republican Governor Phil Scott of Vermont opined that "we must also follow precedent, as well as her (Ginsburg's) dying wishes." According to Ginsburg's granddaughter, the Justice told her at the end that "my most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." While I understand that the New England Republicans tend to be more liberal, Scott is completely wrong. We should honor Ginsburg's dying wish? Where is it written that a Justice should have any say in who their successor might be. Furthermore, if the quote is accurate, Ginsburg did not request waiting until after the election, but rather until a "new president" is installed. That would mean if Trump wins in November, no replacement until January, 2025. Just speaking for myself, I would hope that my most fervent dying wish would be for the well-being of my family.
We know that the Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media did not want to give any credit to Trump for the two recent Mideast peace deals. And, of course, as the Palestinians were not involved, blame Israel somehow. Here was the online headline from "Today": "Israeli jets attack targets in Gaza after Middle East peace deal signing." Disgusting! What happened was the Palestinians, rejecting the idea yet again of any peace with Israel, launched rockets from Gaza into Israel, as a way to show their displeasure with the deals. Only after being attacked did Israel retaliate. But for those who just glance at headlines, the point was made - Israel is bad. Here is the headline of the New York Times editorial of 9/16/20: "Trump's Middle East Deal is Good, But Not That Good." Of course not. Why wouldn't the normalization of relations between Israel and 2 Gulf Arab States be a very good thing - for peace and stability in the region. Just not to the New York Times.
The Times editorial told us: "The Abraham Accords (as the deal was called) offered no movement on this front (the two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians) save the hope that an Israel at peace with the greater Arab world will eventually be more amenable to a just peace with its immediate neighbors." Here's another perspective: Maybe after the 84 year old Mahmoud Abbas is gone (Abbas having been elected to a 4 year term starting in January, 2005, yet is still PA President over 15 years later with no intervening elections), and when a new generation comes to power, the Palestinians will see that the world has moved on without them, and if they want to share in the peace and prosperity of all their neighbors that they will "be more amenable to a just peace." But the Times always prefers to blame Israel - no matter the number of times the Palestinians have rejected peace offers.
The Palestinian Ministry of Religion issued instructions to the mosques within their territory, expecting the Imams to say this: "There is nothing that harms Palestine and its holy sites more than making an alliance with the Jews, being connected to them, and relying on them." And Nancy Pelosi completely dismissed the deals as nothing other than a "distraction" for Trump: "Good for him for having a distraction on a day when the numbers of people who are affected and the number of people who are dying from this virus only increases." Then maybe, Madame Speaker, your House should have focused on the virus early on this year, instead of a purely political impeachment.
I would like to end on this note. It is well known that when they were alive, Antonin Scalia (the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, who often issued blistering dissents) was good friends with Ruth Bader Ginsburg (the most liberal member of the Court). Here is Ginsburg, explaining and quoting Scalia: "I attack ideas. I don't attack people. Some very good people have some very bad ideas." And Ginsburg, explaining her own affection for Scalia said: "How blessed I was to have a working colleague and dear friend of such captivating brilliance, high spirits and quick wit." Her comments made me think of those who stopped being friends with me because of my politics. At least I can say that I never stopped being friends with someone because of their politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)